Ah, yes: One more article today:
Read the article, in full. Click the link above.
---snip
The New England Journal of Medicine (news - web sites), in a study published in July, said 15% to 17% of infantrymen surveyed in four combat units in Iraq suffered from major depression, generalized anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder. Only 23% to 40% sought mental healthcare, the study said, largely because of a stigma against seeking psychological help.
---snip
Okay.. here we go. 15-17% suffer from PTSD. Directly attributable to "war"? The study doesn't say. But the study does suggest a big bankroll for itself and allied "bs" psychologic groups. I'd certainly back a psyche "survey/study" which was being used, certainly to heal, but more importantly, to study ways by which our culture would better prepare "man" for reality. You don't know what I'm talking about?
Gang-bangers do. Criminals do. And liberals love these guys. But when our military is sent to do ITS JOB, suddenly... the psyche (psychotic) experts step in to castigate the military.
The military certainly will discipline these soldiers, if, warranted. But OTOH, the ernest, honest Military Top Brass understand, far better than these pinheads doing the study, what takes place in warfare.
Let me place this in context:
During WWII, a man I know, leading a recon mission -- was sent into a German city -- to assess where shooting at US was coming from. It was a very risky mission. The US had lost a number of men.
This man and his group discovered the shooting was coming from a group of teenaged female Germans, perfectly placed. These females were part of the young "Hitler" youth org.
The recon mission took these females. Out.
Did this man suffer Post-Traumatic-Syndrome over this event? Was his telling me of this merely evidence of his "post trauma" suffering?
No. He gave me the facts. Did he lament these young lives 'taken'? Of course he did. He himself was quite young at the time. Was he ever encouraged to torture himself over this action? No. Was the culture encouraging him to see himself as a "victim" of bad policy? No.
Now then. Place this man's story in today's war (and in this current article). Doesn't it just make you wanna slam this study, and hard, for the "intended" propoganda move that it is? It does me.
The mental health screening of returning military is a two-fold move.
1. Liability protection for the military. (damned lawyers)
2. To ascertain potential mental health problems of returning active duty -- and prescribe mental medicines.
I've seen a thing. I, from the San Francisco Bay Area, am far better prepared for the rigors of war, psychologically, than are many military coming from "clean holds" in the US. What do I mean by "clean holds"? Liberal bastions, and anti-gun, anti-hunting areas and households and communities.
Even those coming from "gang-banging" communities are unprepared. Why? Because gang-banging communities are predominantly liberal strongholds. While inner city violence is a "given" within the liberal ideology, the remaining tenets of liberalism (pro-feminism, pro-sensitivity, pro-one world, pro-dialogue) stunt the emotional growth and preparedness of that which is necessary for accomplishing missions. The "I Be the Man" mentality which has saturated certain "communities" encourages the questionable behaviors of military in combat. It's the gang-banging coda -- and it is now colorblind, still being led by rappers ad nauseum, but it has gone cross color demographics.
The fugue point in this (which I believe libs will spin towards) is the Gov Arnold types of film. Again, although his flicks are very clear on who is the bad guy and who is the good guy -- media will disregard context to bang on cross-cultural lines to impose a censorship; and because media still wishes to "fog up" the lines of good-buy/bad-buy in re the War in Iraq. Thereby enabling them to hold to their support of the "gang" ideology and capitalistic ventures.
There should be, IMHO, a very clear gag on these trials and certainly until analysts and genuine psyche military specialists are allowed to study the cultural split lines in re military preparedness.
Yes, Virginia, we are in a new age -- and not just technology-wise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
And what else could we expect from a party that offers the nation a candidate who's greatest claim to fame was not his 4 months tour in Vietnam, but his post-service bashing of his fellow military peers?
Military bashing is a sideline hobby for the left and the MSM. Thus none of these accusatory articles, portraying our soldiers as victims of the military, surprise me.
What does surprise me is seeing the ex-military officers doing the talking head circuit. They are so skilled in the military strategy of former wars, but seem oblivious to the diplomatic and propaganda wars in the information age.
For instance on Dec 12ths Meet the Press , Gen. Barry McCaffrey offers his assessment of the military as that of "going over a cliff" by next year in numbers of soldiers since we'll run out of rotation Guard and Reserve troops.
Well hells bells... why not just send a cablegram to the enemy. "Hang in there, boys. By next year we won't have enough troops to battle your sorry asses!"
All I can say is many thanks for your service and expertise in the past, Gen. McCaffrey. But do us all a favor, and don't help anymore!
Bush spoke of the changing needs for the American military. Smaller, more special forces as opposed to the McCaffrey's day of massive numbers of troops. Considering the terrain, the enemy and their tactics, a more compact, urban guerilla force seems far more effective a military.
So I must really question what is on the minds of some of our older, distinguished war heros when they make these statements? Are they outdated on this style of warfare? Or are they just plain blind to the repercussions of their words in an age where information goes immediately from the microphone direct to the enemy?
Weigh in, Alia. I'd love to hear your take on this subject.
Mata: The military is quite complex; and each "star" military sees their own portion or aspect of the military. One thing the honchos are not taking into consideration? Two things.
1. Things are/will quiet down. Effectively soldiers (in due time) will be experiencing a "deployment".... at a military base. These bases will be in Iraq and Afghanistan. The impression McGaffney (spelling) gives is that it is going to be "fallujah" non-stop. This is not correct.
2. Troops are being staged and staggered. The fact that so many (according to media) are being deployed right now to Iraq is not an indication that war is heating up; as much as it suggests that war is being contained.
But what must be also factored in? Chasing the enemy is like chasing mercury, the element. As Iraq gets stabilized -- the enemy will perk up elsewhere around the world. The military brass know this; and yeppo! I've been watching. Over the past two years, buildings and build-up around the world have been put in place. And with the newer "deployable" units -- much less "troop count" will be necessary or required to deal with the enemy as it "emerges" worldwide.
That's my two cents, and I thank you, Angel, for asking!
Post a Comment